Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yes, the Second Amendment Guarantees an Individual Right to Bear Arms
realclearpolitics.com ^ | March 20, 2007 | Pierre Atlas

Posted on 03/20/2007 4:04:15 PM PDT by neverdem

On March 9, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a groundbreaking ruling. It declared in a 2-1 decision that the Washington, D.C. ban on handgun possession in private homes, in effect since 1976, is unconstitutional. The court reached this conclusion after stating unequivocally that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals and not just "the militia."

It is quite likely that this ruling will be appealed to Supreme Court, which hasn't offered an interpretation of the Second Amendment since 1939.

Appalled by the District Court ruling, the Washington Post editorialized that it will "give a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment" that, if applied nationally, could imperil "every gun control law on the books."

The Post accused the National Rifle Association and the Bush administration's Justice Department of trying "to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights."

But actually, to argue that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals is a reinterpretation of the Constitution and the original intent of the founders.

One of the major concerns of the anti-Federalists during the debate over the Constitution in 1787 was the fact that the new document lacked a Bill of Rights. In order to get the Constitution ratified, the framers promised to pass a Bill of Rights during the First Congress as amendments to the Constitution. The Second Amendment with its right to keep and bear arms became part of that package.

What was the original intent of the Second Amendment? Was the right to bear arms a collective right for militias, or an individual right for all citizens? The "Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority," from the debates of 1787, is telling. This document speaks...

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 721-734 next last
To: JeffAtlanta
...individual states could do anything they wanted in regard to individual liberties.

Then how do you reconcile other clauses in the Constitution, such as the "full faith and credit clause", Article IV Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

Or Section 2 Clause 1:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

You can't have states with different views of Constitutional rights and still have them recognize opposing rights from other states.

Until the passage of the 14th amendment, the individual states could do anything they wanted in regard to individual liberties.

or the clarifications in Amendment XIV Section 1:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

The 14th amendment clarified what already existed in the Constitution. I disagree that prior to the 14th the states could do whatever they wanted. They may still have, and it may have taken the 14th to explicitly make them stop, but the language was already there to prevent it, just as the language was there to prevent much of what is ignored today in the Constitution.

-PJ

141 posted on 03/20/2007 11:52:36 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: baubau
Not in New York state.

Would you care to elaborate?

142 posted on 03/20/2007 11:57:56 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: lndrvr1972
But here is the catch how are you going to get your guns home. You wait they will find that loophole.

Would you care to explain that?

143 posted on 03/21/2007 12:02:58 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22

If your reasoning were to apply to the First Amendment, then free speech would not apply to TV, Radio, or the Internet. One you put ANY restrictions you are opening the possibility that the Government will use it to restrict everything. Tactical nuclear weapons would be restricted through there cost and the technology needed to maintain them, the 155mm Howitzers would be fun, but you will be financially responsible if it knocks down a house. Can you imagine the cost of insurance if you obtained a working Howitzer?


144 posted on 03/21/2007 12:41:10 AM PDT by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Just sayin

It's up to each library ... man.


145 posted on 03/21/2007 5:18:46 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
"Therefore, the Bill of Rights was meant to be a counter to the powers of the federal government by attempting to list what rights were positively not ceded to it (retained by the states and the people)."

You make a statement like that and then have the cojones to tell me I don't understand the constitution?

146 posted on 03/21/2007 5:22:02 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: bone52
"At some point in your posts, you normally say that you support the 2nd, but that in light of all of the precedent, it is unrealistic to hope that this amendments rights will ever be interpreted as individual."

Correct. The overwhelming majority of the lower courts, and lower court opinions, support the "collective rights" theory. I am afraid that if it goes to the U.S. Suprreme Court at this time they will go with the majority.

"None of your comments are supported by any reading of the plain language of the amendment."

The "plain language of the amendment". I like that.

"Read the decision and answer the arguments. Try it."

Look up "cognitive dissonance". Try it.

147 posted on 03/21/2007 5:28:34 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Betty Jane
And your example offers no formal, organized and well regulated way that the citizenry will go about obtaining and reading books.

You essentially say, "if people read, they will be educated, and that's good". Try again.

148 posted on 03/21/2007 5:39:04 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
"The Founding Fathers spoke of natural rights ("unalienable Rights")"

I intentionally said "natural" rights to distinguish them from "inalienable" rights. Yet you just squish them together. There is a difference.

"Regulated" in the 2nd amendment does not mean the same thing as the modern concept of regulations put in place by the federal government."

I never said it did.

149 posted on 03/21/2007 5:44:23 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Exton1

cost of insurance? a howitzer is like a ferrari. if you can afford to own it, you'll probably never think twice about how much insurance is.


150 posted on 03/21/2007 5:56:24 AM PDT by absolootezer0 (stop repeat offenders - don't re-elect them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22
Are citizens to be allowed these as well?

IMO, if it is an "armament" then citizens have the right to own.

Obviously the guy in the trailer next to you won't be owning or maintaining a nuke there, but if say, Perot or Gates wanted to have large weapon systems that ordinary citizens couldn't afford, so what?

Yeah you're always gonna have some idiot who can't even handle a ball bat responsibly and those should be treated as exceptions not the basis for making rules for all.

151 posted on 03/21/2007 5:58:10 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There oughta be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: supercat
"The clear implication, then, is that since the only matter the court mentioned as being in factual dispute was the military usefulness of a trenchgun, that would be the only matter a jury would have to decide in order to acquit."

Correct. If the jury was presented with evidence supporting the military use of a sawed-off shotgun, then the tax stamp would have been unconstitutional (implied by statements from the USSC). Meaning the law under which Mr. Miller was charged was unconstitutional. Meaning Mr. Miller would go free.

You'll note. Nothing in that process describes an individual right.

152 posted on 03/21/2007 5:59:57 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
"Not if that right is guaranteed by the Constitution."

Speech is guaranteed, correct? Are you saying that speech cannot be regulated? C'mon. THINK!

"I believe that individual rights guaranteed by our Constitution takes precedent over any and all community concerns."

Don't forget the 9th amendment which guarantess ALL rights, not just those listed in amendments 1-8.

So, you're saying you should be allowed to do anything you want and we, as society, must protect your right to do anything you want. Now THAT'S the selfish attitude we're lookin' for!

153 posted on 03/21/2007 6:06:35 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I asked a simple question using the same sentence structure as the second ammendment. I wish you would answe that question.

A well-educated citizenry being necessary to the advancement of a modern state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

In this sentence, who has the right to keep and read books? Please answwer that question.

(And your example offers no formal, organized and well regulated way that the citizenry will go about obtaining and reading books.

You essentially say, "if people read, they will be educated, and that's good". Try again.

) None of what you wrote addresses the question I posed. Nice try.

154 posted on 03/21/2007 6:08:36 AM PDT by Betty Jane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
I believe I said FEDERAL gun laws, challenged in court as violating the second amendment.

Please restrict your reply to that. Silveira, for example, concerned a state law, not a federal law.

155 posted on 03/21/2007 6:13:54 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22

No, it's not a good point.

The right in question exists outside the Constitution, not because of it. The states are inherently obliged to respect it. The 14th Amendment was applied to clarify this.

His arguments have been shredded hundreds of times.


156 posted on 03/21/2007 6:18:40 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"it's best we find out now"

No it's not.

There are now two lower federal court rulings stating an individual right. There may be more forthcoming. More and more states are passing concealed carry. More and more states are passing "stand your ground" laws and the right to protect your property.

What's the hurry? Sarah.

157 posted on 03/21/2007 6:21:41 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: supercat

'tis true that historically the concealed carry of arms was (generally speaking, yes there were exceptions) considered an act indicating ill intent.

That was then, this is now.

Today open carry is flatly prohibited in many jurisdictions, with concealed carry the only legal means. As such, concealed carry should be accepted as a right in light of cultural norms.


158 posted on 03/21/2007 6:25:09 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

The Constitution was never intended to "grant" rights. It defines the powers of the Federal Government.


159 posted on 03/21/2007 6:25:53 AM PDT by Little Ray (Proud to be one of "...the most paranoid, xenophobic and reactionary characters...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Betty Jane
"I asked a simple question using the same sentence structure as the second ammendment"

And I told you it was not the same structure and I told you why. Therefore, I will not answer it.

Re-phrase it to comply with the same structure and you won't need to ask my opinion -- it will be obvious. Which, I'm sure, is why you refuse to do so.

160 posted on 03/21/2007 6:31:55 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 721-734 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson